K's ball 4th and about 7 on their own 30. Snap is back, kick is blocked by R around the 20, ball scampers to about R's 5 when (a)R bats/muffs ball into endzone or (b)bats/muffs ball into and out of endzone, where bodies are everywhere and R finally gains possesion but he is on the end line. What do you got? and I'm sure yall won't screw it up as bad as we did, real bad.

Touchback in either case.

My only question is how the ball "scampers" from K's 20 to R's 5... that's a mighty long scamper.

I wish I could see the play or get more info but sounds like you have an illegal batting by R.
I would think K would accept this foul and have K 1/10 @ K -45. If they decline which we wouldn’t let them do, it sounds like the result of the play is a TB if the ball went out the back of the EZ and K would have 1/10 @ K-20 or TD for R if you rule R applied a new force recovered it in the EZ.

Do you really mean it went all the way to R's end zone or do you mean K's end zone?

Also- it's important to know whether the player muffs the ball or bats it. If he's batting the ball he's not trying to gain possession- is that what happened?

If R bats: we have illegal batting, 15 yds from previous spot if accepted, 1st and 10 from the 45.
If R muffs, which is accidental because of an unsuccessful attempt to gain possession, then we have a touchback. 1st and 10 from the 20.
As far as the recovery while laying on the endline, the ball is out of bounds because it is touching a player out of bounds, touchback.

As Andrew stated, we need some clarity here. I think you mean the ball ended up in K's EZ. In that case, we will have a safety, TB, or TD, depending on who ended up in possession of the ball and if it was simply muffed, or batted.

FED rules:

Since the thread title includes "80 yd screwup" I'll assume you really do mean that the kick went down the field to R's 5. Now we must discern between "bat" and "muff", because there is a significant difference.

In both (a) and (b) the kick ends when it breaks the plane of R's goal line. Simple - Touchback.

In both (a) and (b) if R "muffs" the kick, there is no foul and R puts the ball in play by a snap at their own 20 yard line.

In both (a) and (b) if R has "batted" the loose ball, he has committed a post-scrimmage kick foul. Since the result of the play was a touchback, the basic spot for enforcement is R's 20 yard line. Also, since R's PSK foul occurred behind the basic spot, it will be assessed as a spot foul from the 5 yard line. R will put the ball in play by a snap, 1st and 10 from the R 2-1/2 yard line.

Now if you really didn't mean that the ball went downfield and you intended to say the blocked kick "scampered" to K's 5 yard line, there are many other factors to consider. First, the touching by R when the kick was blocked is ignored, so put it out of your mind.

Again we must discern between "bat" and "muff", but we now must also consider "force". If a new force was added to the loose ball by either R's bat OR muff, then R will be responsible for the ball entering K's end zone.

So, in (a) where the ball stays in the end zone, you must know: Did K or R recover the loose ball, or did it become dead not in player possession. If the muff did not add a new force to the grounded kick, it will be a safety if K recovers the loose ball. It will be a touchdown if R recovers the ball, or if no player recovers it and it becomes dead with no player in possession (an unlikely but possible event). If the muff did add a new force, and this is a judgement call, then it will be a touchback if K recovers the ball, but it will still be a touchdown if R recovers, or no player recovers, the loose ball.

In (b) if the muff did not add a new force it will be a safety, if the muff did add a new force it will be a touchback.

Now consider a "bat." Batting is an intentional act that will not likely be done by R near K's end zone. It's possible, but not likely since R will probably be attempting to recover the ball. More often, you will see batting by K. However, consider that R did bat the ball at K's 5 yard line. Since batting is an intentional act, you will most likely rule that, from 5 yards out, the bat added a new force. I certainly would. Therefore, in (a) if K recovers the ball it will be a touchback. If R recovers the ball it will be a touchdown. In (b) it will be a touchback.

But batting is a live ball loose ball foul that is administered from the previous spot, thus negating the touchback or touchdown if - (should I say when?) - accepted. After enforcement, K's ball, 1st and 10 at K's 45 yard line.

Whew!!

So, BigGref, what did you do?

LOL yah thats what I ment to say. Good job Middleman

That little sucker must have had a great set of legs

I am not even going to try and answer as the play makes no sense. I does not say how the ball "scampered to R'5 when it was blocked by r to begin with. Seems to me a hole buncha I got no clue.

clarification
 

let me make the obvious correction, the ball is knocked backwards to K,s endzone, 20 yds behind K. My appologies for the confusion. to restate/reemphasize...

K is around K's 30 yd line. they snap, it is blocked by R, knocked around by both teams to about the 5 where it is (a)batted into and through the endzone by R, (b)muffed into and through EZ by R, (c)batted into and through EZ by K, and (d)muffed into and through EZ by K. Once again sorry for the confusion, I really would like to present the general consensus to the rest of my crew by Friday. Thanks!

The 80 yd screwup was in our possible/likely misapplication of the rules when we put it in play for the next play. THere may even be a case book play but I have misplaced mine. thanks!

Re: clarification
 

Noted from original post is is 4th and 7 from K's 30 yard line. [Edit: I have assumed that the action listed added a new force to the ball as that seems to be the intent of the question]

(a) "Batted into and through the endzone by R": Illegal batting by R at K's 5, touchback for K. K may elect to have the result of the play, touchback for K, 1st and 10 at their 20 or they may accept the penalty by R enforced from the previous spot plus the 15 penalty yards, 1st and 10 for K from K's 45.

(b) "Muffed into and through the EZ by R": Touchback, K's ball at their 20 yard line, 1st and 10.

(c) "Batted into and through EZ by K": Illegal batting by K at K's 5 yard line. R may take the result of the play, a safety, R is awarded 2 points and K puts the ball in play with a free kick from K's 20 or R may accept the penalty and have K repeat 4th down from the 2.5 yard line since the spot of the foul is behind the basic spot which is the original LOS (30 yeard line here) during a loose ball play.

d) "Muffed into and through EZ by K": Safety, R scores 2 points and K puts the ball in play by free kick from K's 20.

[Edited by BulldogMcC on Sep 7th, 2005 at 12:52 AM]

Re: Re: clarification
 

Ok that sounds more like it. I would have to agree on the calls here.

REPLY: Remember that K is allowed to bat a grounded scrimmage kick toward his own goal ine...BUT only when that kick must be beyond the NZ when batted.

Dont make sense
 

this was kind of our thought but then we thought that this play/foul (touchback) it was very unfair; R blocked the ball, muffed it around to and through the EZ and they are penalized, giving K the ball back doesn't make sense, they screwed up they lost 30 yds on the play, on 4th down, they didn't influence the ball at all, and then they get REWARDED?? with the ball 1st and 10? would the fact that K had not advanced past there line to gain even after the TB have an effect, thus making it Rs ball at Ks 20? Ideas

I've been looking closely at the casebook and found that our play would most likely have resulted in a TB (yet still unfair to R IMO).
IN casebook 8.5.3 sit A with 4th and 7 from K's 10. K1's punt from EZ. The kick is partially blocked and barely moving at K's 2 when R's muff provides a new force which moves the ball into, and out of, the EZ Ruling: TB. Because it was the new force by R1 which caused the ball to go out of K's EZ, the result is a TB instead of safety (sites 2.13.1;8.5.3b)

The safety argument could be argued though sit different than previous discussed with... 8.5.2 sit B; with 4th and 3 from his own 10 yd line the scrimmage kick by k1 is blocked so that it REBOUNDS INTO k's endzone and (a)is muffed OOB in the EZ by either K or R or (b)is simmultaneously recovered in the EZ by K2 and R1 RULING in (a)safety, (b) touchdown

somewhere in the middle...8.5.2 sit C:K1's punt is blocked on K's 5 yd ln. and the ball is slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches the ball.The ball then rolls into the EZ where K2 falls on it. RULING: the covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's touch. The official must decide whether the original force was such that the ball could have gone into the EZ regardless of the muff. If the official has doubt, he will rule that the force was supplied by the kick, thus resulting in a safety. If the official rules R1 supplied the force, it is a touchback.

so here are some additional casebook cases. input if you would like thanks.

Re: Dont make sense
 

But R made a mistake, although it was not a penalty, they caused the ball to become dead not in player possession behind their opponents goal line. The result of that mistake is their opponent gets the ball at their own 20. It is not a penalty, merely a result for an action. That action is the only action that has meaning. K kicks the ball, R blocks in or behind the neutral zone and it is ignored, R muffs a grounded kick supplying a new force to the ball which causes it to go into K's endzone where it becomes dead not in player possession. The only thing that matters is the part that starts "...supplying a new force..." R caused that to happen, K's bakk 1st and 10 at their own 20. If K had pitched it back and it was rolling around at the five, if R had intercepted it and run it back, fumbled and the ball was rolling around at the 5, or any other reason a live ball was rolling around at the 5, R's muff supplied a new force which caused the ball to go behind K's goal line where it became dead not in player possession.

5-1-1 Awards first down for the team to get the ball in play after a touchback.
8-5-4 Defines the team to get the ball after a touchback as the team whose goal line was involved.